quote:

---

Originally posted by sparknheart

quote:

---

Originally posted by rossfadeinout

Icon and Semeia,

I just want to let you both know that it is good to have you both back around. While i may not agree with you on every issue, I always find your posts to be thought provoking and always given with love.

Just thought I'd share,

Ross

---

A BIG Ditto!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iconoclast

sparknheart

Semeia, Iconoclast and others,

What is your view of divorce with the exception of adultery and abandonment being the reason? Should or can a married couple get divorced if they tried professional counseling and are still very unhappy and miserable with each other? With no physical, but plenty of mental abuse, would you give them your blessing to seek a divorce in order to be set free from the pain? If very little love is shared, would it be just for the couple to be left to suffer?

Iconoclast

My view is that once a marriage is consummated (therefore a “marriage”) any divorce is a break from God’s ideal. Any break from God’s ideal is, by definition, sin. It is “hamartia” (missing the mark).

Now, should this fact mean that under all circumstances divorce should never be allowed? My view is no. Marriage is about two people committing to each other. It is a fundamental free-will issue. If one of the partners chooses to break the commitment and wants out then there is not much that can be done. The other partner should not be required to be a doormat to someone who is punishing them because they don’t want to be together any more.

I think it is clear from the Mosaic law that since our hearts are hard divorce cannot be legislated against in any form or fashion.

I do not think any of this has to do with my “blessing”. My “blessing” is neither here nor there except as a form of judgment which is unhelpful. Now, if you ask what I believe is the best course of action for some couple then I have an opinion and it is that if both partners want to love each other and want to have a happy marriage then I believe it is always possible for such to occur and I would tend to advise working through the issues. In my view, we either work through the issues right where we are at, or we run away and work the exact same issues out with someone else.

Nor do I think any of this has to do with “justice”. It is not about justice, it is about life, it is about love. So, the question is, what is helpful to this couple in terms of loving each other and creating life together? How do we support this couple? How do we support the individuals? How can we influence them to work through the issues? How do we give them hope that such is possible? I believe that these are the important questions. The “legal” question only gets in the way of what is truly needful.

So, what is helpful in this situation? I believe that what often happens to most marriages is that the couple is “falling out of love” because they no longer share common goals. They once did (presumably this is why they got married) they then achieved those goals (kids, house, and so on) and failed to set new shared goals. One spouse focuses on their individual career goals and the other spouse focuses on their individual community goals (or what have you). So, the key is to call the couple back to the goals and the love they once shared in order to create hope that such is achievable again. If there is no hope then there is not much chance of them wanting to set new shared goals and thus start working together again instead of apart from each other.

This is of course a very simplistic view of an extremely complicated matter. However, I believe it points to the kinds of questions and understanding – the kind of “judgement” (separating all things) – that we should be focused on in order to love one another.

thanks,
Iconoclast

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Semeia

quote:

---

Originally posted by sparknheart

Semeia, Iconoclast and others,
What is your view of divorce with the exception of adultery and abandonment being the reason? Should or can a married couple get divorced if they tried professional counseling and are still very unhappy and miserable with each other? With no physical, but plenty of mental abuse, would you give them your blessing to seek a divorce in order to be set free from the pain? If very little love is shared, would it be just for the couple to be left to suffer?

---

Semeia:

First of all, Jesus said "unchastity" not "adultery" as an exception. If unchastity and adultery are the same thing, why did he use two different words for it? Unchastity, to my understanding, means something more along the lines of "lack of virginity" which is a one-time event (thus referring to the betrothal period, as obviously once someone consummated the marriage they would no longer be a virgin).

And he said nothing about abandonment.

But he also said nothing at all about "outlawing" divorce - making a new, stricter law that forbid divorces (and the consequent "adulterous" sex in remarriage). He was simply pointing out that those people who thought that they were pure and holy were a lot less pure and holy than they imagined. His words come in the context of a sermon in which he is trying to get people to look at their OWN sin (take the log out of their own eye) rather than trying to look at SOMEONE ELSE'S sin (take the speck out of their brother's eye).

Similarly, we are not focusing on what Jesus said about divorce in order to get Christians to take a stricter line toward divorce. Marriages fall apart, and although I might encourage a friend or family member to seek counseling to try to work it out, if it then failed I would still support them and love them. In fact, I would NEVER use what Jesus said about divorce to try to keep them together - because that was NOT the context of Jesus' words. Jesus himself was not counseling someone in the process of a divorce to not get divorced, he was telling already divorced people to stop judging other people while overlooking their OWN sin.

And of course I would encourage a divorced person to get remarried. Everybody deserves to find someone to love and cherish and spend their life with. People are not meant to be alone. I would also encourage a gay person to find a partner for life, because as I just said, EVERYBODY deserves to find someone to love and cherish and spend their life with.

And, no matter what anyone says about divorced and remarried people repenting and moving on with their life - Jesus calls it "adultery" and adultery is about sex, and so it would be "adulterous" every time they have sex, not just at the time of divorce and remarriage. But does that mean I think that a divorced and remarried person should repent every time they have sex, since Jesus clearly said the relationship would be adulterous? No, of course not. That would completely miss the meaning of his words. He didn't say what he did to bring a new legalism into being - a new, stricter law. He said what he did to get people to STOP JUDGING OTHERS, because they themselves had plenty of sin in their own life.

That is the context, here, too. Just as it is better for people to live in the sin of remarriage (if they got divorced for reasons other than unchastity - which if you think about it was totally sexist because it basically only involved the bride's virginity, not the groom's) than to live alone, or remarry their first spouse (which is what the church used to force people to do if they wanted to stay in the church and take communion), so it is also better for a gay person to live in the sin of a gay marriage than to live alone.

But is it even up to us to evaluate whether or not someone else is "sinning"? I would say no, not ever. Sin is something we are only able to see in ourselves. Sin is "missing the mark," but each of us can only know what the will of God is for us, not for our brother. Sin is what we, individually, need to repent for. If something is "clean" for us, as Paul would say, how would someone else know?

Does that mean that we don't stop people from harming each other? No, of course not. We stop the pedophile from molesting, we stop the drunk from driving, we stop the abuser from battering, we stop the murderer from murdering. But we don't stop them because it is up to us to stop someone else's SIN; we stop them because it is up to us to LOVE people, and it is not loving to allow someone to get abused or molested or murdered. It is not up to us to evaluate sin in others; it is up to us to love.

Would it be loving to point out to a remarried person that Jesus thinks that their sex is adulterous? Of course not. And that wasn't even Jesus' point. Jesus’ point was to convict people of their OWN sin so that they would stop focusing on OTHER PEOPLE’S sin

But is it loving to point out that it is futile and unloving to focus on the sin of others (for example, unmarried people who live together, gay people, etc.) when each of us has a log of sin in our own eye - divorce, remarriage, saying thou fool to our brother, lust in our heart, being less than perfect every day of the week? Yes, I think that's loving. Because it is abusive to self-select the sins we might not suffer from while ignoring the ones we do suffer from. It is abusive to the people whose “sins” we are focusing on.

I have two sisters who are gay, and several male friends. Only one of them is a Christian, and he only is because he has an enormous tolerance for emotional pain, because he has been rejected and accused and lectured to by Christians throughout his life. It is doubtful that my sisters will ever know Christ. What do you suppose Christians look like to them? They look like divorced, angry, cruel, judgmental, gossipy, greedy, narcissistic, [insert your favorite sin here] people who don’t seem to focus much on their own flaws (evidenced by the fact that they continue to be greedy, gluttonous, angry, etc.) and yet who seem to see gay people as the downfall of the world as we know it. They do not feel loved or accepted by Christians; on the contrary, they are vilified. We have divorced preachers in church after church, obese preachers, preachers who have left their own children behind after a divorce, narcissistic preachers, greedy preachers, power-hungry preachers, basically preachers showing every sort of human failure possible. Now if we discover a preacher is a pedophile, or is stealing from the collection plate, we make them leave the church (or at least we do after hundreds of victims come forward and we can no longer cover it up). But we allow every sort of “sin” possible in the pulpit – and how could we not? Preachers are human; humans sin. But we take certain “sins” and elevate them above others, and shun people who have them – refuse to let them have leadership positions in our churches; sometimes refuse them entrance altogether.

This is what this disagreement is about – the elevating of certain sins as worthy of focus – and somehow they always turn out to be someone else’s sins.

But the question we should be asking is whether or not we are fulfilling the highest commandment: to love God and love our neighbor as ourself.

When Jesus encountered the woman at the well, he acknowledged her situation without shame or accusation. He did not say, “You are living in sin because you are not married.”

When he encountered the woman caught in adultery, he did not focus on her at all; he focused on her accusers, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Even the words, “Go and sin no more” can only be said by someone who is without sin. If you have sin, it is the height of hypocrisy to say, “Go and sin no more.”

Yes, we need to stop people from raping, murdering, molesting, abusing, driving drunk, slandering, abandoning their children, etc. But we need to stop people not because we need to stop their sin, but because we need to love them and their victims.

When a person is going through marital trouble, it is loving to support them and help them to get counseling. It is not loving to point out the sinfulness of divorce. That won’t help them resolve their problems – and we have our own log of sin to focus on, anyway.

By the way, if their marriage is foundering because they are a workaholic and are never home, or because they get drunk on a regular basis, or because they have an anger problem, and they have invited us in by talking to us about their problems, it is certainly okay to try to help them to see their own part in the destruction of their marriage; although it takes a lot of skill to give people that kind of feedback and it is usually better if it happens in counseling.

Most people I know who are divorced and remarried are in healthier marriages the second time around. I’m sad for people when their marriages don’t work out; but I’m thrilled when they get a second chance at love and fulfillment.

All I want is for people to give gay people the same grace – to give gay people the chance at love and fulfillment, without judging them for it. The vast majority of gays can never change their sexual orientation, no matter how hard they try or how long they pray. And the vast majority of divorced people can never go back to their first spouse, either – and most people have no problem accepting them.

Thanks,
Semeia

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sparknheart

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iconoclast

My view is that once a marriage is consummated (therefore a “marriage”) any divorce is a break from God’s ideal. Any break from God’s ideal is, by definition, sin. It is “hamartia” (missing the mark).

Now, should this fact mean that under all circumstances divorce should never be allowed? My view is no. Marriage is about two people committing to each other. It is a fundamental free-will issue. If one of the partners chooses to break the commitment and wants out then there is not much that can be done. The other partner should not be required to be a doormat to someone who is punishing them because they don’t want to be together any more.

I think it is clear from the Mosaic law that since our hearts are hard divorce cannot be legislated against in any form or fashion.

---

Thank you for your response,
I’m sorry, but I’m confused. You state: “My view is that once a marriage is consummated (therefore a “marriage”) any divorce is a break from God’s ideal. Any break from God’s ideal is, by definition, sin. It is “hamartia” (missing the mark).” And then in the next sentence you say “Now, should this fact mean that under all circumstances divorce should never be allowed? My view is no.”

How can you declare it a sin and then turn around and condone it? I understand forgiveness after the fact, but a green light for the sin of divorce when they are in such need to stop the sin of a hardness of heart. This two, three, four sins make a right is beyond me.

If all sin is not the same, why not just kill your spouse! Why, because there are different levels of sin, divorce is not the same as eating a few extra Krispy Kremes. God does not what you to be his Krispy Kreme, he wants you to be his bride. There is a reason for God using the analogy of marriage through out the Bible, love and being faithful come to mind.

Peace,

Mark

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iconoclast

Jo Anne

I agree with you about the common goals, but even moreso; I believe that if a couple has lost respect for one another; if they are no longer friends, and if those basic elements in a marriage cannot be regained - that perhaps it is more damaging to continue as a couple than to separate, or even divorce.

Marriage at all costs? It is such a difficult thing to discern - when enough is enough.

Iconoclast

I totally agree with your all of your thinking here. It is very, very difficult. If a spouse wanted a better marriage and was willing to work on it but the other wasn’t then I would tend to encourage them to “call the question” and separate for a period of time sooner than later. In fact, the sooner, the better. There is nothing like losing what you have for a time to help you realize what you want.

I absolutely do not believe in “marriage at all costs”. The goal is nothing short of a loving relationship. I believe in win-win or lose-lose when it comes to marriage (or any relationship for that matter). Any time one spouse is playing win-lose or lose-win it is headed for disaster. I honestly think that the most loving thing to do is to call the question sooner than later even though it may feel like an unloving thing to do in the moment.

Somehow the thought that you must lose your life in order to gain your life comes to mind.

Jo Anne

But that is that is often the problem in community...it isn't "personal" enough.

Iconoclast

Wow. This really rings true to me. And shockingly enough the underlying problem of judgment comes to mind as a potential reason for why this may be. Who wants to open up to others when our experience is of being shamed for the reality of our lives? And who wants to give loving feedback to another when our experience is one of people shooting the messenger?

thanks,
Iconoclast

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moon_river_j
Is DIVORCE really the sin?

---

quote:

---

Your post was refreshing, and honest, and loving. Sometimes I wish we could dispense with the "religiosity" and remember what it is that Jesus said was most important (as you have mentioned): loving him and loving others. All else is dross.

I'm personally encouraged by what you've said. Thank you

---

quote:

---

Is DIVORCE really the sin?

---

quote:

---

...Thus, once the "two have become one" for whatever reason, they are one - joined together - and any break from that is a break from God's ideal - it is sin ("hamartia" - missing the mark).
.

---

quote:

---

.....Matt. 5:31-32 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Its about sex with someone other than the first partner.

---

quote:

---

Putting on my Legal Robes and picking up my Gavel with which to better Judge and grabbing a piece of that yummy Pie Baked with Fruit from the Tree of the Knowlege of Good and Evil, I'll say I don't think divorce itself is a sin. I think it's the union with someone else that violates the original covenant. (become one flesh with one person, become one flesh with another person, pretty soon you have a Granlund sculpture)
.

.
Short answer: no

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moon_river_j
I have an honest, sincere question here Mark (or anyone else). Is it divorce that is the sin - or is it the breaking of the marriage covenant, which happens before divorce?

---

quote:

---

From what I have observed, divorce is most often the funeral service for something that has already died.

---

quote:

---

This is not condoning, but I do believe that we must allow a way of escape for relationships that are too damaging to continue in.

---

quote:

---

Otherwise we are indicting people for something that is beyond their control -

---

quote:

---

we may be even emotionally abusive as believers by making them think they would be committing a grievous sin for leaving an impossible marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iconoclast
It is indeed the sin that we should be giving first priority over. If we cannot learn to love our spouse then we are in trouble indeed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sisters of Cain

quote:

---

Originally posted by moon_river_j
Is DIVORCE really the sin?

---

Putting on my Legal Robes and picking up my Gavel with which to better Judge and grabbing a piece of that yummy Pie Baked with Fruit from the Tree of the Knowlege of Good and Evil, I'll say I don't think divorce itself is a sin. I think it's the union with someone else that violates the original covenant. (become one flesh with one person, become one flesh with another person, pretty soon you have a Granlund sculpture)



Short answer: no

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sparknheart

quote:

---

Originally posted by moon_river_j
I have an honest, sincere question here Mark (or anyone else). Is it divorce that is the sin - or is it the breaking of the marriage covenant, which happens before divorce?

---

No, divorce is not the true sin.

quote:

---

From what I have observed, divorce is most often the funeral service for something that has already died.

---

The sin is letting love for your spouse die before your funeral service.

quote:

---

This is not condoning, but I do believe that we must allow a way of escape for relationships that are too damaging to continue in.

---

I think Paul Simon wrote a song about your escape, but I prefer the writings of a different Paul.

quote:

---

Otherwise we are indicting people for something that is beyond their control -

---

Beyond their control, so God commands us to love and it is beyond our control?

quote:

---

we may be even emotionally abusive as believers by making them think they would be committing a grievous sin for leaving an impossible marriage.

---

Impossible you say, I thought you believed anything was possible with God.


Blessings,

Mark

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moon_river_j
I wholeheartedly agree - sex outside of a marriage union is sin - which falls short of God's idea. It's wrong. But I believe that a marriage covenant can be broken without sex being the culprit at all. We're assuming (I think) that it would take adultery to break that covenant, and I don't believe it does. I believe that the covenant can be broken by treating your husband or wife in a way that is sinful. It is sinful to harm someone; whether it is sexual, physical, emotional... In fact, emotional abuse has been known to be as damaging, or perhaps more damaging than other forms of abuse. Abuse is abuse though; whatever form it may take.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps part of the confusion is that there are two senses of the word “law”. I think on one hand we can understand “law” as a legal requirement – a “should with teeth”. The notion here is that it is some legal requirement that we can and should enforce on others. Let’s call this the “legal requirement” view of law.

On the other hand we can think of the word “law” as simply the way it IS. Gravity is a “law” means nothing except that there is a universal notion that the way things are is that two bodies with mass attract one another. There are consequences to this notion of law just as there are with the legal notion of law. If one jumps out of a building the “law of gravity” will attract you powerfully toward the earth. Let’s call this the “natural consequence” view of law.

Notice a key distinction between these two notions of “law”. The legal kind requires someone to enforce it upon another whereas the natural kinds is automatically “enforced”. In fact, to say that it is “enforced” is to confuse it with the legal kind. It is not “enforced” it simply IS.

So, what kind of a law is love?

Is it a legal requirement sort of law that requires someone to enforce?

Or is it a natural consequence sort of law that simply IS.

I think the notion that love must be chosen else it is not love contains within it the answer to this question. Love simply cannot be a legal requirement sort of law because that is a contradiction in terms. Love cannot be enforced else it is not love.

So what does it mean for love to be a natural consequence sort of law?

I think it means that choosing to love leads to the natural consequence of eternal life and that not choosing to love leads to the natural consequence of eternal death. I think love is a law like gravity is a law. It is inexorable. It just IS.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rossfadeinout

I have been thinking in terms of God's laws not being something that he has arbitrarily put in place, but a description of the way things are. The wages of sin is death is not a punishment imposed by God on sinners, it is the natural "payment" for a person cutting themselves off from God, who is love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by billzbob

quote:

---

Originally posted by rossfadeinout

I have been thinking in terms of God's laws not being something that he has arbitrarily put in place, but a description of the way things are. The wages of sin is death is not a punishment imposed by God on sinners, it is the natural "payment" for a person cutting themselves off from God, who is love.

---

YES. Well said.

Yet, sin also enslaves, and evil is personified by "the lord of this world." So more is required than just our beginning to act better. Death needs dying, and souls need liberation.

Christ "paid" to reality, conquering.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sparknheart

"the problem is all inside your head", she said to me
The answer is easy if you take it logically
I'd like to help you in your struggle to be free
There must be fifty ways to leave your lover

She said it's really not my habit to intrude
Furthermore, i hope my meaning won't be lost or misconstrued
But i'll repeat myself at the risk of being crude
There must be fifty ways to leave your lover
Fifty ways to leave your lover

Just slip out the back, jack
Make a new plan, stan
You don't need to be coy, roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, lee
And get yourself free

Just slip out the back, jack
Make a new plan, stan
You don't need to be coy, roy
Just listen to me <-----------
Hop on the bus, gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, lee

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by billzbob

Yet, sin also enslaves, and evil is personified by "the lord of this world." So more is required than just our beginning to act better. Death needs dying, and souls need liberation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moon_river_j
I think it would take a super hero to withstand anything else, and there are not that many superheros around nowadays. I only know one, and I have a sacred romance with Him.

Your thoughts?

God Bless,
Jo-Anne

---